Much of the cost increase of health care has occurred as a result of government becoming involved in paying. As government can create money out of thin air there is nothing government cannot afford, and with unlimited means and unrestricted spending, we as both a people and a Nation of States and many local governments have acquired massive amounts of debt requiring offsetting inflation (a form of unavoidable tax) as the means by which our government survives. Or more likely we would see our debt increase exponentially quite rapidly. Recognize the fact that the PRIMARY OBJECTIVE of MOST of those in Congress as well as most of those who work in government jobs is to keep their jobs. Who is more likely to win an election, a politician who campaigns on taking something from you or one who campaigns on giving you something at little or no cost? Government employees also must make their need appear to remain or grow to remain employed.
Sounds about right. True, if you assume that it would not change if government were to become less involved as a charitable source. Maybe we might see a shift from political contributions to get a candidate elected to charitable contributions to aid people in need instead? Perhaps we should drop the "U" from USA and simply become known as the SA (State of America)? Over my lifetime we appear to have become much more divided than united.
Well I don't know when you grew up but it was probably a while ago before all the expensive treatments for cancer and heart disease, eyc,etc. And you probably don't recall people dying of treatable causes because back then the news didn't really cover those issues and particularly where poorer people were involved.
Yes, it was quite a while ago, and I spent a couple months in the hospital and a year in bed having a Doctor visit our home weekly for a checkup and medication, which my Dad had to pay out of pocket having no insurance and no permanent job. But costs were more or less based on the depth of peoples pockets not governments pockets back then. Everyone should get the best care they can afford, along with any help others are willing to contribute. Make friends, not enemies, and you might find more people willing to provide help when you need it.
Let me know how you are going to handle a major illness ( say a few hundred thou) without insurance. And medical billing hadn't been based on the depth of a person's pocket for as long as I have lived. Doctor's do and have done charity but in realty that is made up by charging others more.
The same way I handle every expense, I seek out and purchase what is within my means. Yes, that's essentially what I said. That's exactly how all government social spending works. Real charity does not come from government but from people giving something freely, time or money, without need of repayment in kind, with perhaps the only expectation that the recipient be appreciative and in some ways display the aid received was not a waste.
Somehow I doubt you will actually chose death if unable to pay in the case of a major medical problem.
You asked "Let me know how you are going to handle a major illness ( say a few hundred thou) without insurance." I responded "The same way I handle every expense, I seek out and purchase what is within my means." You're right, while I wouldn't "choose" death, my means could very well require my accepting it.
Getting what you can afford is just as easily done as it is said. The eventuality of death is unavoidable regardless of ones wealth or income. There are but two occasions in our existence in which we have no freedom to exercise a choice, birth and death, and while we may be able to stave off the latter it comes at a cost and only delays the inevitable.
Well obviously you deliberatly missed my point but when you are facing the choice between dying or accepting care you cannot pay for I doubt you will choose dying but hopefully that time of self realization will not occur for you.
If the 'choice' as you put it is between dying or accepting care you cannot pay for, I believe any rational person would most likely choose the latter. However, there is quite a difference between 'allowing' or 'mandating' others to pay for the care you are being provided.
That statement is one I can agree with however in our society people get the care one way or the other and someone does pay for that care. There are more and less cost/ result efficient ways to do that. And the American system both before and after Obamacare is arguably the least efficient in the developed world.
I agree that people in need of medical care should receive some amount of care, but within the limits of what others are willing to pay for, or what the provider is willing to provide without remuneration. That's rather ambiguous, but more or less true, indeed there are more/less cost/result ways of doing anything. If efficiency is what we're trying to accomplish in Health Care, the solution is simply assuring that the care provided is no more than what is needed within the limits of ones ability to pay including what others are willing to contribute.
In order to do that Congress has to,pass a law that all medical care has to be paid for in advance and that it is a crime to provide care eithout pre-payment.
Of course you will. Otherwise hospital and doctors will continue to provide care for patients that cannot pay and then make up the costs by charging everone else a bit more. That is basically how it works now with the addition that the Taxpayers contribute through government funding.
First eliminate the government paying and Doctors can provide what care they are willing to provide without the assurance their paying patients will make up the costs. I don't mind paying a 'little' more and if the Doctor goes wild in providing extravagant care passing the cost to paying patients I can always change to another Doctor.
Well if you are really advocating eliminating Medicare, Medicaid, and government subsidies to insurance companies that will be fun.
Actually all I'm advocating is the reduction of government subsidies to what taxpayers are willing to pay for. The problem would be much more easily solved if all voters were to experience a reduction of the means available to them each time government spending increased. When Obama spoke "we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" my first thoughts were "is he going to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments along with the Federal Reserve Act?" which fundamentally transformed the U.S.A. into becoming a more collectivized form of government, concentrating powers to a single source. But like Roosevelt and Johnson the changes came about only as the speed in which power was being concentrated in the hands of those elected to our Federal government and the agencies run by appointed/unelected persons who can impose regulations without need of Congress to approve, but only to fund their operations. Yes, repeal not replace the ACA, reduce Medicaid spending with intent to gradually eliminate it completely, and Medicare can be kept as long as the recipients who expect to benefit from it are willing to fund it adequate to maintain it while looking for the best way to eliminate it and Social Security. But the first step should be to just repeal the ACA and then we can look into how to reduce the costs of providing the best care possible within the means of those in need of care, recognizing the fact that there may be better care available if others are willing to fund its provision.
Well I am certainly in favor of reducing government subsidies to what the taxpayers are willing to pay for as long as it also applies to the military and the government and the farmers and every other place the government spends money. It would certainly be interesting for the voters to have final approval of the budget. My guess is that Americans would probably vote to spend more on the health of their fellow citizens and less on killing foreigners.
We could end ALL subsidies by repealing the 16th and 17th amendments, allowing the Federal government to tax the States who would each tax their citizens proportionate to the total population as originally allowed, which would then give the people a greater voice in all government spending, Federal, State and local.
